On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, ??? wrote:
> > Yes, I think so.
> > keeping them separate and pass them to
> > ObjectStore::queue_transactions() would increase the time on
> > transaction encode process and exhaust more cpu.
> >
> > The transaction::append holds 0.8%
Behalf Of Sage Weil
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:47 AM
To: 池信泽
Cc: Ning Yao; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why we use two ObjectStore::Transaction in
ReplicatedBackend::submit_transaction?
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, ??? wrote:
> > Yes, I think
ber 01, 2015 8:59 AM
To: Sage Weil; 池信泽
Cc: Ning Yao; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: why we use two ObjectStore::Transaction in
ReplicatedBackend::submit_transaction?
Sage,
Is it possible that we can't reuse the op_t because it could be still there in
the messenger queue before calling
If we keep them separate and pass them to
ObjectStore::queue_transactions() ,the cpu usage of
ObjectStore::queue_transactions() would take up from 6.03% to 6.76%
compared with re-using op_t items.
2015-11-01 11:05 GMT+08:00 池信泽 :
> Yes, I think so.
> keeping them separate and
the op_t items are encoded in issue_op, so after issue_op, we could
use it directly instead of local_t items?
2015-10-31 21:18 GMT+08:00 Sage Weil :
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015, ??? wrote:
>> hi, all:
>>
>> There are two ObjectStore::Transaction in
>>
Weil
Cc: 池信泽; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why we use two ObjectStore::Transaction in
ReplicatedBackend::submit_transaction?
Yeah, since issue_op is called before log_operation, we may consider to reuse
op_t after sent encoded op_t to the wire. local_t.append(), at least, does
er 31, 2015 8:35 AM
> To: Sage Weil
> Cc: 池信泽; ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: why we use two ObjectStore::Transaction in
> ReplicatedBackend::submit_transaction?
>
> Yeah, since issue_op is called before log_operation, we may consider to reuse
> op_t after se
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015, ??? wrote:
> hi, all:
>
> There are two ObjectStore::Transaction in
> ReplicatedBackend::submit_transaction, one is op_t and the other one
> is local_t. Is that something
> critilal logic we should consider?
>
> If we could reuse variable op_t it would be great.
Yeah, since issue_op is called before log_operation, we may consider
to reuse op_t after sent encoded op_t to the wire. local_t.append(),
at least, does copy the op_bl in op_t transaction and we may avoid
this memory copy, and if we can avoid this append operation as well as
in